Misplaced Pages

Political Correctness: saying/doing something simply not to upset or offend someone (e.g. changing the word "negroid" to "sub-saharan" to not upset peoples oversensitivities - "negroid" and "sub-saharan" aren't even the same thing, "negroid" can encompass certain asian groups aswell). And as stated: negroid, mongoloid and caucasoid have definately used by modern scientists, on modern documentaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.51.81 (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

ORIGIN OF HUMAN RACES

IF ALL RACES OF HOMO SAPIENS HAVE EVOLVED FROM A COMMON ANCESTRAL STOCK HOMO ERACTUS THEN DIFFERENT RACES VIZ CAUCASOID, MONGOLOID, DRAVIDIAN AND NEGROID WHY BECAME HAVING DIFFERENT COLOR AND PHYSICAL APPEARANCE ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.110.140.167 (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Negrid types.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Khoisan

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)

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)

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the late J. Phillipe Rushton was a white nationalist . 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)

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)

See below. Soupforone (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

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" . Soupforone (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

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, Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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 . Soupforone (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 . Soupforone (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Andajara120000

User:Andajara120000 was recently blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Soupforone (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The most important thing about Negroid is it is a Racist term

The most important thing today it is considered a racist offensive term. That some how got skipped from the lead. --Inayity (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Negroid is a purely scientific term so I don't think it's necessary to include 'offensive' in the lead. Personally, as a Negro, I don't find it offensive at all... The only Niger-derived term I find offensive is Nigger, for obvious reasons. Omo Obatalá 18:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It is all the same thing. Negro, Black, Nigger, and NIGGA (some say that is different Uh Huh) all variations in some European language. I feel sick thinking someone still calls an entire race of people by this horrible term. Root of Racism is words like this. That is my SOAPBOX. --Inayity (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should have a Niger-Congo term for our race. Congoid is the only other scientific term applicable, but I feel uncomfortable using Congoid because not all of us are Congolese... I am of Kongo ancestry, but I'm not 100% Kongo. Niger-Congo peoples are found all over Sub-Saharan Africa from the shores of Senegal to the jungles of Congo to the shores of Mozambique. Omo Obatalá 19:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Skulls

I find this whole Nilote skull thing quite puzzling. In pretty much every major cranial study, Nilotic populations (as in Nilo-Saharan speakers) have clustered with populations with general "Negroid" skull patterns; it's not just a few unrepresentative samples. This is what is meant by they generally possess the suite of Negroid physical characteristics. For example, in Barry J. Kemp's 2006 study . Soupforone (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The Nilotes with "Negroid" skull shapes are likely to be mixed with Bantu neighbors; this does not reflect Nilotic (or to a greater extent Nilo-Saharan) people as a whole. If you do find anything reliable, preferably by an anthropologist, go ahead and add it... but I am skeptical to use racist Eurocentric opinions on Niger-Congo/Nilo-Saharan/Hamito-Semitic classification. Omo Obatalá 01:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

This Anthropology textbook from 1997 includes Nilotes in the "Negroid" category, Du Bois includes them in his "Negroid" category in this 1915 publication as does this anthropological work from 1900. Tobus (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Anything recent? Neither Kemp, Du Bois, nor Sharma(?) are qualified; Deniker was over 100 years ago (outdated and racist). Omo Obatalá 03:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

"recent"? The statement in question *is* only referring only to the conception of Negroid "in the first half of the 20th century" isn't it? The Sharma reference is a Masters-level Anthropology textbook, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP Tobus (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

DuBois was not a trained anthropologist, but rather a pioneering Afrocentrist who claimed all and sundry. Regardless, Carleton Coon and pretty much all of the other actual major anthropologists indeed grouped Nilotes as "Negroid" because that is where their general physiognomies fell - particularly their osteology, which was regarded as the surest indication of ultimate origin. Anyway, per the above, I've replaced it with Ashley Montagu, though the Sharma compendium is certainly good enough . Soupforone (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, good points made by Soupforone and Tobus. Omo Obatalá 13:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

How is Du Bois and Afrocentric? That is a anachronistic claim. Coon is a quack like all those who measure skulls and give people titles based on skull measurements. All of this is a dead "science" of the colonial racist era. --Inayity (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, there's this. Soupforone (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Well this is what Afrocentrism is right now you will find it is different to anything W. E. B. Du Bois (you can read his bio) believed in. It is almost like calling Pan-Africanism Afrocentrism just because of an overlap in African self-determination. I guess it fits into all that Negro talk.--Inayity (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, but you should tell that to Richard Cullen Rath. Soupforone (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Khoisans are Negroid or not?

Are Khoisans Negroid or not? I know that (technically) their skull is different from a 'textbook' proper Negroid skull, so how would a forensic anthropologist classify their skull? Negroid? Just Khoisan? SweetDayfortheMind (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The Khoisan or Capoid craniofacial form is generally similar to that of the Negroid, particularly vis-a-vis the nasal apparatus. The main difference is that the Capoid skull is usually quite neotenous, and the facial skeleton is often a lot more flat. Soupforone (talk) 02:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, so it is classified as Negroid? As far I know the only terms still used in forensic anthropology are Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongoloid. Are Australoids also classified as Negroid? What about American Indians? They're considered Mongoloids? SweetDayfortheMind (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The crania is similar, but usually with greater neotony and a flatter facial skeleton. The classic Native skull is generally Mongoloid in form. Australoids are their own taxon. Soupforone (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

What about mixed race people? Is there such a thing as a mixed skull type? SweetDayfortheMind (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The relative skull form is inherited from the parent stock. Soupforone (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you be a little more explicit and straightforward? Your answer really wasn't direct. SweetDayfortheMind (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Populations get their skull form from their parent stock. For example, for the Khoisan, they would have gotten their cranial form from the Tuinplaats stock and other ancient proto-Khoisan specimens. Soupforone (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Congoid?

The sources I see mainly mention Coon in relationship to this terminology. and there are very few hits on both words, not all anthropological.. I don't think we should be suggesting that this is a normal synonym. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It isn't even in my large OED or the current OED online. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Coon coined it, so that's probably why. Point taken, though. Soupforone (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

out of africa summary

"the Out of Africa theory, i.e. that all human beings are descended from small bands of people that migrated out of Africa beginning 125,000 to 60,000 years ago" Sorry, doesn't this ignore that others' ancestors stayed in Africa and are still human beings? Proposed correction: "(...) all humans outside of Africa are descended (...)" Lastdingo (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, good point. Fixed. Soupforone (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Reverts with factually false edit summaries

I appreciate critical review of and improvement on my edits. But if you revert an edit with a summary like first link doesn't mention negroid & second doesn't mention these types while removing references to published literature which contains exactly what the footnote claimed it contained, I have to assume you are being over-zealous. You aren't even applying "isolated demands for rigour" for referenced statements you do not like, you are applying "fake rigour" in claiming something referenced is not in fact referenced. Please restore the referenced material you have blanked in this way.

It is beyond doubt that "Africoid" has been used as a synonym for "Negroid" from the 1970s. You may argue that the term isn't notable enough for the lead, which would be fine, but you cannot claim its existence hasn't been established. Otoh, the term "Black race" as synonymous with "Negroid race" is extremely widespread and extremely notable, to the point where it may even be the WP:UCN primary name for the topic. I have no idea how you can argue it isn't notable enough to be mentioned prominently in the lead. --dab (𒁳) 10:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

To answer your question, the first link does not mention Negroid as a synonym for Africoid. The author just mentions a Charles H. Davis, Jr.'s suggestion, ca. 1962, that Africoid should be used instead of Negroid rather than that Africoid is used as a synonym for Negroid . The second link mentions Africoid and Black but not Negroid . Homfet (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The caucasian race WAS a grouping of humans?

I think I detected bias against whites in the article Caucasian Race. Whereas in the articles about the mongoloid race, the negroid race and the australoid race the words "IS A GROUPING OF HUMANS", in the article about the caucasian race "IS" is substituted by "was": "was a grouping of humans". I tried to fix it but I think my edit was not approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Castillo2030 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Negroid as a racist term - provide sources please

Please put sources on "Negroid" being a racist term or remove the detail from the article. Not sourced, it has no merit whatsoever and should be dismissed. --Luka1184 (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Difference between revisions

• Skin pigmentation in Negroid populations varies from very dark brown to brown which is slightly darker.

{{black people sidebar}}

That sidebar is a useful collection of links, but it does look somewhat awkward where it is placed right now - hanging out parallel to the references on desktop view. Wouldn't it be more sensible to rearrange the imagery so that it's further up? Note, that would definitely involve more sandwiching - can't have this ratio of text to image (or box) and keep it all on one side... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Carleton Coon map

Could people please stop trying to "modernize" or "update" or "simplify" the links in the caption to the post-Pleistocene distribution map according to Carleton Coon? The entire point of this caption is that it should represent the denominations assigned by its author; changing entries to read what the modern anthropological assessment would be is a misrepresentation. At the same time, it is desireable that entries are wikilinked to the modern terms, so that each term's history and meaning (as opposed to the actual written term) can be explored by the reader. Please don't rewrite the terms or remove the links because of perceived redundancy. Or if you feel very strongly about it, discuss the matter here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Carleton Coon races after Pleistocene.PNG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Map from the Horniman museum is correct

Dear user: Rsk6400 ! Why do you call the map outdated? The Caucasian , Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid groups of races exist accoriding to the genetic distances of various ethnic groups based on autosomal genetic researches.--Liltender (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It actually does include several inaccuracies. See my reply here: ]. I concur with User:Rsk6400. The issue (at least for me) is not whether those groups exist but other inaccuracies (described in my reply linked above). Skllagyook (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The issue for me is that it's superfluous - we don't need a hard-to-make-out-photo to illustrate the concept when we have that perfectly nice (if surpassingly 19th century :p) Meyer's map up on top. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I concur with User:Elmidae, but also want to answer the question of @Liltender: I don't know of any recent scientific source for your statement. If you do, I'd gladly learn about it. BTW: That you asked the same question on (at least) five different pages, makes discussion a bit complicated. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I also concur with User:Elmidae. Skllagyook (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Police also use autosomal DNA, where they can reconstruct the ethnic background.--Liltender (talk) 06:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Meyers map based on some imagined linguistical fantasy. For Example, Hungarians the genetically and anthropologically most caucasian people in former communist-block countries are depicted as mongoloids, however the genetically bit less European (more mongoloid) Slavic populations and the genetically and anthropologically more near eastern balkanite people are depicted as Europeans.--Liltender (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Once again, @Liltender: I don't know of any recent scientific source for your statement. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/04/ancestry-warrant-dna-records/

Even in 2007, Police could check the race of the person. Read about it here: https://www.wired.com/2007/12/ps-dna/

Or read this: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1752928X19300873 "Forensic DNA phenotyping (FDP) technology represents a set of techniques that aim to predict physical features of criminal suspects, such as eye, skin and hair colour, and also ethnicity through the inference of biogeographic ancestry from their biological samples. " So not only the race, but even the concrete facial features are reconstructable from genetics!!!

--Liltender (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Liltender:, you don't seem to be responding to the request for a recent scientific source for"The Caucasian , Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid groups of races exist accoriding to the genetic distances of various ethnic groups based on autosomal genetic researches." Also, please indent, see WP:INDENT. In addition, the map isn't sourced and should be removed from the museum article and History of anthropometry. Doug Weller talk 09:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Why haven't you read my links?--Liltender (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you labouring under the delusion that these maps are meant to depict current (or even reasonably recent) scientific consensus? Of course they don't. From our modern perspective the Meyer's map is fantasy, or rather mistaken, and that is made very clear in the article. Arguing against that aspect is really barking up the wrong tree. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Liltender: why didn't you read WP:Indent? I had no idea that you that your links were sources for "The Caucasian , Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid groups of races exist accoriding to the genetic distances of various ethnic groups based on autosomal genetic researches." Not even after I read them. I'm not sure that you should be editing these articles as you don't seem to understand the issues and don't seem to realise that your links don't even mention the 'races' in your claim. Doug Weller talk 18:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Autosomal genetics, and negroids: Good reading: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1&q=%22autosomal%22+negroid&btnG= Autosomal Genetics and Mongoloids: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1&q=%22autosomal%22+mongoloid&btnG= Autosomal genetics and Australoids: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1&q=%22autosomal%22+australoid&btnG= .. --Liltender (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Indentation really would be helpful. I think the onus of providing WP:RS (and not just starting points for research) should be yours, since you made the statement. I read a part of your previous list, enough to convince me that Doug Weller is right. The Horniman map (if the picture was really taken at that museum) is as "realistic" as Tolkien's maps of Middle Earth. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I proved that population geneticist scientists still use Negroid Australoid and Mongoloid as valid terms. The denial of the existence of such human groups came from powerful politically motivated unscientific pressure groups in news magazines and media. They don't care about science, they care only about political ideologies only.--Liltender (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Since the discussion has become a bit off-topic, I continued it at User_talk:Liltender#The_"pressure_groups"_you_mentioned Rsk6400 (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hair

@Elmidae: The problems with the section that I see were: "It is a ubiquitous trait among Negroid populations". That sentence clearly assumes that those populations exist. The first sentence was a description of hair of people that are living now, in 2020, based on a book of 1899. The map is a modern map which has nothing to do with an outdated concept. It might be included, if some context were given. So, what I did now, was to change the section to a wording that is safely based on the two sources and to remove the map. I'd still like to delete the section, because I think that these small parts of information have no value without more context. What do you think ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: I like your current version - puts it explicitly into a context of historical interpretation. Which is the overarching theme of this section, so that's consistent. I don't have a problem with the length, two sources seems fine for a sub-section. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Elmidae: I never liked my version of June, because of the two isolated shards of information, which I see as a sort of "everything". I was looking for some source having authority and giving at least an idea of being complete. That's why I prefer EB 1911 to the random collection of sources we had before. --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: I dunno - seems a bit of a shame to lose these other sources. A prime function of the article is to provide links for readers to get more information, and cutting sources in the interest of tidiness does not seem ideal. Don't you think the two books on forensics add a valuable facet of how some specialized areas still apply this type of classification in modern times? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Elmidae: Good point, I re-added the skull description. Still, I'm not sure about the "modern" use of the term in forensics, the latest secondary source that I know of discussing (and criticising) its use being from 2000 or 2004. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Humankind vs. mankind

@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)

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)

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)

Agreed. This is the principle established by MOS:VAR. Generalrelative (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@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)

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)

MOS:VAR favours retention of what was there before (so humankind). Beyond that, the less gendered term is more in keeping with Misplaced Pages's general style. Guettarda (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@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)

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

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