Talk:Australoid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Australoid article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
This article is supported by WikiProject Anthropology.

This project provides a central approach to Anthropology-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Picture

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 You may argue that the term i outdated, but the images were produced back when the term was used, and are therefore valid illustrations for it.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)

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)

Please, how are you relevant to this discussion? This is an article about a term which is very rarely used today, obsolete if you will, but it was once in use, and the illustrations show what the term referred to. Please come up with some good arguments for removing these images, or they stay. And please don't remove sourced statements. Funkynusayri 03:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Quit making baseless accusations. The first source refers to physical anthropology in general, and therefore includes Australoids. Anyhow, the sentence says that racial classification is disputed, not the term Australoid, so your current objection is irrelevant. Footnote five clearly mentions the term on the other hand, so I don't see why you want to remove that. As for the pictures, the first one shows what the term refers to, and the second picture does too. You better come up with some better arguments, so far they aren't convincing. Or let's at least wait for a third party, even as such has already made an opinion. Your constant mention of yourself in this discussion makes me believe that you have something personal involved, which would make your arguments POV. Funkynusayri 03:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
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)
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)
Not a soapbox either. Fred ☻ 14:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Heh. I want to add relevant content which will help the understanding of the article, whereas you want to leave it out because you believe it might offend someone, and apparently for personal reasons, since you keep bringing yourself up with the "how would you classify me" gibberish. Are you an Australian Aboriginal? Funkynusayri 14:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

there is already an article for indigenous australians. You know that you cannot sneak your photos into that article so you look for the lesser known article. These photos are old and the caption says australian types not australoid.Muntuwandi 19:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Image:LA2-NSRW-1-0178.jpg|thumb|right|Examples of Australian types in a lexicon from 1914, which were then believed to belong to the Australoid race.

  • I know that I cannot what? It never occurred to me, because some of the types are not from Australia itself. So please quit your ridiculous assumptions. For the record, the picture in question is on the right. Don't remove it from the talk page. Funkynusayri 23:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Here is the page from the work in question.[1] There is no mention of Australoid in the article. I am intrigued by your research though, I will keep in touch. Fred ☻ 10:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Barlow

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)

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)
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)
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)

[edit] The first Americans?

Skulls comparable to Australoid peoples have been found in the Americas, leading to speculation that peoples with similarities to modern Australoids may have been the earliest occupants of the continent. [1][2] These have been termed by some Pre-Siberian American Aborigines.

Skulls comparable to Australoid peoples have been found in the Americas, leading to speculation that peoples with phenotypical similarities to modern Australoids may have been the earliest occupants of the continent. [3][4] These have been termed by some Pre-Siberian American Aborigines. These early Americans left signs of settlement in Brazil which may date back as many as 50,000 years ago.

One of earliest skulls recovered by archaeologists is a specimen scientists have named Lucia.[2] According to archaeologist Walter Neves of the University of São Paulo, detailed measurements of the skull revealed that Lucia revealed that she "was anything but mongoloid." Further, when a forensic artist reconstructed Lucia's face, "the result was surprising: 'It ha[d] all the features of a negroid face"[5]

Scientists believe these Australoid first Americans later were displaced relatively recently by peoples with more brachycephalic profiles, projecting zygomas and monolids (cold climate morphology) approximately 7,000 to 9,000 years ago. A small number of peoples living in Tierra del Fuego are speculated to be a possible remnant of these earliest known Americans.

“ The pre-European Fuegeans, who lived stone age-style lives until this century, show hybrid skull features which could have resulted from intermarrying between mongoloid and negroid peoples. Their rituals and traditions also bear some resemblance to the ancient rock art in Brazil--BBC News, 1999.[6] ”
  1. ^ Scientific American, Skulls Suggest Differing Stocks for First Americans, December 13, 2005
  2. ^ National Geographic, Americas Settled by Two Groups of Early Humans, Study Says, Dec 12, 2005
  3. ^ Scientific American, Skulls Suggest Differing Stocks for First Americans, December 13, 2005
  4. ^ National Geographic, Americas Settled by Two Groups of Early Humans, Study Says, Dec 12, 2005
  5. ^ ."First Americans were Australian." BBC News, Sci/Tech. August 26, 1999. Accessed 01-07/2007.
  6. ^ ."First Americans were Australian." BBC News, Sci/Tech. August 26, 1999. Accessed 01-07/2007.


I moved the section here. A number of close exmainations hane not revealed any connection to the term, it is not mentioned in these refrences, it is original research, fugitive from other pages and deletion discussions. There is much more in there, that should also be moved. Cygnis insignis 12:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering why this was removed. The sources clearly mention the skulls found were "Australoid" or "Negroid." I'm reinserting it. deeceevoice (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Undone. They do not. cygnis insignis 09:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
You show your usual levels of intellectual dishonesty. Your fantasy that "Australian" in this context does not imply Australoid is unsustainable, and many sources can be found that contadict you. Restored with source. Paul B (talk) 12:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE FROM RUNOKO RASHIDI

i would like to advise everyone not to quote or reference from runoko rashidi. he is a black supremacist or african supremacist. please quote only from credible sources. (unsigned.)

Runoko Rashidi is a respected scholar in some circles, and as such he's perfectly quotable. And he's NOT a supremacist of any sort. deeceevoice (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] REMOVED link 6

people please do not quote from afrocentric or black supremacist sites. please use credible sources when u browse for information. i have removed the information dealing with link 6

please keep this a scientific site. please do not quote from afrocentric or eurocentric sites.

thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjuna316 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed huxley map

extremely old map that is not scientific in any sense. can someone post a proper modern scientific map. i feel that huxley map should be removed from wikipedia permanently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjuna316 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Bad idea, the term Australoid itself is a historical term, so a historical map is needed. Funkynusayri (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

nah actually i have got no problem with the term australoid. and i feel it is still scientifically accurate. i just feel that a proper map dealing with aboriginasl, papuans, samoans etc should be presented. i feel that these groups should be concentrated on not others. i will put in a proper map later. thanks funky —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.80.235 (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dishonesty

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" (as 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 physyical 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)

  • All the race articles are jokes, and they'll continue to be watered down whenever they are expanded. No one keeps track of them apart from the people who just want to delete them all. Funkynusayri (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One of the WORST discussion pages ever

i am indian. this discussion is just like the egypt discussion section that was hijacked by afrocentrics this discussion is also going in a similar manner. instead of concentrating on aboriginals, papuans, samoans, polynesians or the land bridge that was formed in south east asia that enabled the aboriginals to come to australia in the first place. these afrocentric crackpots want to go half way around the world to find connections with india. its exactly the same like the egypt section, both are filled with afrocentric nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjuna316 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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)