From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Removed {{NPOV}} template.[edit]

I removed the {{NPOV}} 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 {{NPOV}} template intact in that page, so that discussion can be continued there. -- Frank W Sweet 00:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed Biased comments[edit]

Removed: "The one it refers to is the typical dark skinned one, obviously inferior and not as intelligent as whites. Known to be impure." Baised information without cited sources.

Negroid Subraces[edit]

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 (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

This article is a piece of crap[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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. Jaredt  13:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not discuss changes[edit]

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)

I'm trying to be as sensitive as possible, whilst maintaining encyclopaedic and scientific accuracy, so that edits do not come accross as biassed. I am in the process of adding refs, having just read up on how to do so ;) --Nordic Crusader 05:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not the article for slurs, Negroid is adjective not a noun like the slur you are proposing. this is indication of lack of good faith in your edits.Muntuwandi 05:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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. --Nordic Crusader 05:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

In any case, this article is Negroid, an anthropological term, not Negro. --JWB 06:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit War[edit]

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)


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)

Firstly their is no link to harper collins, its a commercial site requiring subscription. Secondly there are already less biased dictionary definitions. Lastly wikipedia is not a dictionary, try wiktionary.Muntuwandi 12:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between unbiased and politically correct. --Nordic Crusader 19:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Tendentious editing Muntuwandi 19:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Muntuwandi, with regards to the Nordicism, try and think of your own objections and don't piggy-back off others. You mentioned absolutely nothing about my name until Asterion floated the idea. I put this question to you; when have you ever made one single constructive edit to the Negroid article? It appears your sole ambition is to delete information and revert edits. Because it is a fact that you have not once added constructively to the article. The only person here whom actually meets the criteria for Trolling is yourself, so I'd be carefull before you start slinging insults, they may just come back to bite you in the rear quarters. --Nordic Crusader 11:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This Article[edit]

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)
Remember no personal attacks. --Ezeu 05:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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
  • 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#Creative_trolling says about creative trolling:

Muntuwandi 12:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


This picture is relevant to the article and is not racist simply because there is a gorilla there, as the Caucasoid is also in the picture, the Gorilla is simply given as a datum. It does not infer that the Negroid is less evolved, it simply shows the difference in evolution, from a Gorilla, a place in evolutionary history which we share in common. --Nordic Crusader 04:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If no action is taken against Nordic Crusader, then I cannot take any further interest in this article. There is no point of viewing an article each time to find something offensive from the very same person. Muntuwandi 04:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The same can be said against you, Muntuwandi. What is the point in editing an article when you constantly revert every edit and have added absolutely nothing contructive yourself. It seems the sole purpose of your account is to revert edits and delete information from articles, adding nothing yourself. What is racist about these picutes? Nothing. I am starting to think you object not to them, but to me personally. Now run off and do your homework and let the grown ups edit contructively. --Nordic Crusader 04:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

File:Negroid Caucasoid Mongoloid.jpg
Comparison of Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid skulls.

Here is the other picture I uploaded. Not a gorilla in sight, yet it is still written off as racist by Muntuwandi. Why? How on earth is this racist when it is simply a picture of undisputable differences? --Nordic Crusader 04:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Nordic Crusader, the images are not relevant to this article. You saying that the first one, because there a Caucasian skull along with a gorilla skull, means there is no racism is BS. The "Negroid" skull is closer to the gorilla, and you know it, and is not scientific at all. It's original research. Look at the other links on this discussion page way up, that show many different skull types. (If there were no captions, I would not know the differences.) The second image is propaganda from (1839), and racist, as it's from way back when scientific racism was at its fore. It's outdated, and not appropriate in this article. There is no one particular skull type that is Negroid, Mongoloid, or Caucasoid. Therefore, having one of each, to compare the "undisputable [sic] difference", is poppycock. Those images are disputable, and adding them to the article is racist propaganda. You cannot add one skull to represent a Negroid, especially one that is closest to an ape. Sheesh. "Nordic Crusader", what kind of name is that, and why on this subject? (Hypothetical questions). Now, be a "grown up" and do more research that does not fit your POV, but is real science. - Jeeny Talk 06:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone here still "assume good faith" when it comes to Nordicoid Agitator? Are you all suffering from battered wife syndrome?

Does everyone here not realise that these types of "race" articles will always attract trolls and other mentally unstable individuals? I'm tired of seeing numerous talented editors (like deeceevoice) wasting their time and energy trying to salvage innately flawed articles on essentially stupid and outdated concepts.

Could y'all please simply just IGNORE trolls and revert their edits on right without further comment? It's ironic how someone claiming to be against "political correctness" is basically being shielded by it. Protecting the integrity of this noble project is more important than being nice to strangers who have proven themselves to be unworthy of our patience.

Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 21:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is locked at the moment. I am certainly up to the challenge of Nordic Crusader, as a POV pusher. It's obvious to me, at least and I do not suffer one bit to contest his/her POV, and OR pushing. Troll is a troll is a troll. But, we still have to watch the 3RR, and join in consensus as per Wikipedia policies. - Jeeny Talk 22:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
My faith in wikipedia has at least for the moment been restored. Nordic Crusader has been blocked indefinitely(User_talk:Nordic_Crusader#Blocked). I would not be surprised if he returns as a sockpuppet but he will be easy to recognize. What a relief. Muntuwandi 03:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as what I can see from this thread, Nordic Crusader seems to have had reason to keep the image. Having not seen the image myself, I cannot fully justify my claim, but I will further explain. In short, the terms Negriod and all the rest are becoming to most people terms that we sweep under the table because we don't want to recognize that the human species has subspecies like dogs do. It's unfortunate that most people take this to be "racist" (and on a similar note, anything with the inclination of black inferiority nowadays is "racist" to everyone). This article is merely about presenting the facts about the potential for a subspecies in the human race. Whether there is or not, we cannot beat around the bush and pretend that these craniofacial-whos-a-whatit-classifications don't exist, because they do. As such, we should be entitled to back up any claims with images.

Now, if there is a free image (or user created image) comparing the skulls of a Negroid and a gorilla and a Caucasoid, regardless of whether any look alike, there should be no denotation of racist here. It's all in your head, and as much as we may want them to look different, the image would say otherwise, and we have to accept that as fact. Look, racism is only to the extent that people construe things. If someone is going to make a big fuss here every time someone adds content that may find ways to separate the Negroids (or any of the other two classifications) from the others, then all you are doing is inciting more racism and not doing anything to accept the terms and the progression of science.

So please, from now on I will expect that this article be more open to the topic which it is supposed to cover. I would rather not come back here to see that more content has been deleted or removed because it has the potential to be construed as racist. To set the record straight, I'm not racist, but I can reasonably conclude that there are indeed inevitable differences between the various cultures of the world. Jared (t)  14:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Only problem is, according to geneticists and anthropologists, the whole human race is but a single subspecies (H. Sapiens Sapiens), the only surviving subspecies of its species (H. Neanderthalensis and the like having become extinct), and "Caucasoids", "Negroids" are mostly social groupings that do not correspond to any real taxonomic differentiation whatsoever. Thus, an image that compares skulls of a Caucasoid, a Negroid and a Gorilla to try to show that Negroids are partway between the Gorilla and the Caucasoid is tendentious at best, and most likely downright racist.--Ramdrake 17:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jared,

The point is not whether diverse cultures are different -- it is whether some people may be assumed to be innately superior based on superficially looks.

Racism doesn't have to look like The Color Purple. It's all the little things like the thoughts you may have for African American pupils in your school. Any low expectations you may have about their academics. Perhaps you think "typical" when an AA does something bad but the reaction is different if it's one of your own.

This is the danger here: not that Tom Plod will look at the picture and decide to go on a murderous rampage maniacally shouting "I'm gonna shoot me a nigger!". Rather, it is how being constantly taugh these small "truths" by popular media and rightwingers affects your behaviour towards other human beings.

It is not noble and harmless to simply make sweeping statements about how some "races" are better athletes and others are smarter. Being able to beat others at the 100 metres has never made civilisations. It is those traits that separate us from other animals which the Scientific Racists down play in the "others." Having a big dick has never allowed a person to make scientific discoveries. This and other useless traits are touted as assets of the "other" -- whether the "us" is "Whites" or "Aryan Teutonic English Protestants."

It shouldn't surprise you that inventors of "race" theories reserve the best and most usefull traits for themselves. Who wants to look like a beautiful Ethiopian when you can instead claim to have a brain 5 cc's larger? It is not Science but simply xenophobia adapted for a smarter and more sophisticated audience.

Now, I'm not saying the Wiki should be censored (for a good idea of the nature of the deleted image go to the Negroid-Caucasoid-Mongoloid one and be sure to see the history and view his original comments), I just hate having to have this shit forced on us just because someone had the bright idea of misusing the label "scientific."

The ironical part is that ultimately Science is the real enemy of racism. Just by doing the experiment of interacting with the "others" we can see how idiotic these 200 year old theories truly are.

btw. Wiki is not exactly worse off now that Nordicoid has had to adopt a new hobby elsewhere...

Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 18:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, I'd like to thank the two editors above for being quite civilized in their responses. Not that my comment above was meant to incite violent words, but it was a bold statement I felt was in order and you handled your responses well, something I haven't seen in a while.
Second, I'm not going to say that I'm too knowledgeable on the whole idea of having separate cranium sizes. But from what I understand, this article should be about the fact that there are distinct differences between different races of people (who are so classified by the shape of their head). Now, it is not my understanding that this topic was meant only to be leverage to conclude any racial inferiority. If the purpose of labeling people with this shaped head "Negroids" was to incite racism, in other words, then no, it is not our responsibility to preach these words (although we do have a need to at least put the idea out there). If the purpose of labeling "Negroids," however, was merely to further a scientific find, then we need to convey these findings here, even if that does include a comparison of the three craniofacial types (but a gorilla should probably be left out).
My point is, whether something may appear to be racist or not, it is really of no consequence to the scientific meaning it is supposed to carry. As long as we don't push the assertion that because their head are different, they are lower socially, then we are doing a fine job on this article. But the minute we leave something out because we have worries that it may cause racist feelings among people, we lose something encyclopedia because we fear for the feelings of others. Personally, I don't take much interest in this subject, nor do I know too much about the topic, so that is why I'm leaving you with these thoughts, so that perhaps you could just remember that this article should not be just about why the term is "largely-archaic" or an "oversimplification," it should be about the topic at hand, and then delve into the reasons why it is not or should not be used. Jared (t)  15:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The thing I and a growing number of, well, scientists say is that the idea of "races" with significant and measurable differences is an old tale from Western mythology.

I obviously have never seen you before, but I imagine that I look rather different from you. I'm a bit shortish, with light brown skin, rather thick lips, a slightly long face, side burns don't quite connect with my goatie, a small number of little hairs on my chest, and longish dreadlocks of black hair which has a tendency of fading to a dark brunette-like hue. But the truth is that I live in South Africa, while your ancestors are (I'm guessing) North Western Europeans.

It shouldn't suspire anyone that we look rather different. However, if you start moving North of South Africa you'll initially see darker skins (we in South Africa have some light skinned Khoisan ancestors) then you reach people like the Tutsis and Maasai who are tall and have slightly softer hair, then the Ethiopians appear with their high brows and soft hair. If you move further up, you go to Egypt, then the middle East, then Eastern Europe, then "continental" Europe, then further North to where your people are from, you'll notice everyone slowly moving more and more like you.

The differences only look big and obvious when you compare isolated people. This, to me, shows two things:

1. There are clear distinguishing feature between "racial" groupings. People look like their neighbours, and people who are not neighbours look different. Thus there are no clear and isolated "races."

2. There's no such thing as a typical and specific "racial" feature. I look like my mother but I don't really look like the president of Uganda.

Where is the "racial" border? Who gets to decide this stuff?

There are few reasons to believe in "races," and I see absolutely nothing beneficial that can comes from it.

I cannot therefore believe that there is such a thing as a typical "Negroid" or "Caucasoid" skull and I see no honest reason why we would want to display a picture claiming to depict them. And after you see a picture claiming that "Negroids are closer to Gorillas" how can you NOT reach a racist conclusion?

This stuff is not just "presenting the facts" -- it's a clearly thought out plan to represent an outdated racist agenda. The abuse of the "scientific" label should not confuse us.

Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 18:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

To Jared, the point is there is nothing scientific about that image. In fact, it may even be a skull from a different species, such as Homo erectus, or Neanderthal. "Races" are not differnet species, we are all the same species, Homo sapiens sapiens. Of course there are differences in hair texture, skull shape, skin color, blood type, etc. But, having one skull to represent the so-called races is not scientific and totally incorrect. - Jeeny Talk 18:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
In addition, from a historical viewpoint, mankind has always tried to categorize itself empirically. Attributes such as skin color, hair color, facial features were chosen. The fact is, these empirical differences do not correspond to any significant genetic categorization of human genetic diversity; for all intents and purposes, races could have been defined as tall, medium or short based on height with no more significance in relation to genetic diversity. The truth is, according to a growing majority of scientists, that races are actually closer to a set of beliefs than to any sort of biological truism.--Ramdrake 19:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say:

1.There are no clear distinguishing features between "racial" groupings.

Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 21:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)