Talk:Capoid race

Physical anthropology

The first paragraph of this article seems to indicate that physical anthropologists, as a group, recognize racial classification (particularly the of the -oid variety). According to this statement by the AAPA (statement on race), no such recognition is evident (two extracts follow: "Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past." "The geographic pattern of genetic variation within this array is complex, and presents no major discontinuity. Humanity cannot be classified into discrete geographic categories with absolute boundaries.") Unless contradictory evidence can be cited for this claim that physical anthropologists recognize this racial classification, I will change the wording.--Ove 23:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

language change

I do not think this article reflects the controversial nature of this racial classification, nor does it compare with the complexity of the other -oid articles (as difficult as they are in themselves). If there are no comments in the next few days, I will delete most of this text and replace it with something more in line with the other articles. --Ove 17:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Bantu Migrations

Isn't the Capoid presence in East Africa refering more specifically to Ethiopia and the Horn (i.e. fossils from the Awash river Valley and modern Afar Region)? If so, this would make the Bantu migration portion of the sentence incorrect. Yom 05:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe there are remnant "proto-Khoikhoi" populations in the African Great Lakes area, and I suppose there are other indicators that point to a historic Capoid presence in all of Eastern and Southern Africa before the Bantu, Arab, Malay and European migrations into the region. // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 08:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh okay, that clears things up, then. As a side point though, Arab migrations (or Yemeni, rather) are no longer though to have occured in East Africa. Yom 09:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

>remnant "proto-Khoikhoi" populations

Yes, Hadza and Sandawe are mentioned in the article.--JWB 23:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

What about the ever controversial and mysterious North Africa? There have no doubt been accounts of there being there as well as in Europe. If you want to tell a little, tell it al.--71.235.94.254 06:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

One of two within the Negroid race?

Negroid does not mean Africoid. Negroid, is an outdated derogatory term to classify human beings. Negroid, or Negro, means black race or black. Caucasoid means those originating from the Caucasus. "Mongoloid" are those originating from Mongolia. Negroid makes no sense in present day. Is there any such continent or place called Negrous, or Negro that would continue to justify this term? The Negroid classification was to make the "negros" a sub-race (sub-species) of human beings, which is FAR from the truth and SCIENCE. Therefore the beginning sentence is misinforming the public, and continuing the stereotype that Negroid is something like the "missing link" between apes and humans. ~Jeeny ^(talk) 04:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, subspeciation does not have a human equivalent in race. Human subspecies would be modern humans and archaic humans. Race, biologically, is a less meaningful distinction than that. 65.117.234.99 (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• The terms Caucasoid and Mongoloid do not have anything to do with origin, but with physical morphology. Caucasoid simply means something that looks like a Caucasian (in the "true" sense of the word, someone from the Caucasus region in the Near East), Mongoloid simply means something that looks like a Mongolian. That's also why people with Down's syndrome were called "Mongoloids" in the past, not because they were believed to have originated in Mongolia, but because they looked like people from Mongolia.

-Do you realize how stupid what you just said was? You are saying the term negroid is justified because it looks negro. Well firstly no one calls anyone that in todays world. Secondly you claim that Cauacasoid has nothing to do with "orgins" yet you say "Caucasoid simply means something that looks like a Caucasian" is caucasian not an orgins? Evn if it is not there is a geographical caucaus and mongolia there is no geographical negrolia or negraus. The term should be streamlined with the other two to reflect a region and africoid sounds dam good to me. The word negroid is defunct —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihba (talk • contribs) 07:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, the term "Humanoid" does not mean that something is "from" humans, but that it looks morphologically similar to humans.

Therefore Negroid simply means something like: similar to "black", as in black people.

Check the meanings of the suffixes "oid" and "id" if you for some reason lack faith in my claims. Funkynusayri 12:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I’m confused about something. This article says: “Congoid” is formerly called “Negroid”. But when you click on “Congoid”, it links to Negroid, and that article doesn’t say congoid is the new word for negroid. Surely this article is wrong? Grand Dizzy (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem with the Map

It doesn't explain what the color that occupied Oceania after the Pleistocene expansion is. Is it a "Polynesian" race? Lycurgus (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I believe I started the previous thread (One of Two...) but someone apparently deleted my comments there, not sure of this though. Lycurgus (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently not, think it's a false memory now. In any case the issue in this thread is the only one I have a position on. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 02:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Factually incorrect

This article asserts that Coon's out-of-date racial classifications have validity, and equates Khoisan with Capoid on the basis of what seems to be original research. Wikipedia should not be reported discredited decades old ideas as though they are current and mainstream. Fences&Windows 16:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the original research, and made clear that this racial category is historical and not in current use. Fences&Windows 17:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I redirected "Khoisanoid" to Khoisan languages instead of Khoisan, since the term is sometimes used to refer to them (Khoisanid languages). FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool, that's better than Khoisan, and miles better than a redirect here. Fences&Windows 17:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Capoid hair

Khoi-San people have the same 'wooly'/tightly curled hair that their Bantu neighbours do, they just wear it in the 'peppercorn' style. You can see Westernized Khoi-San who do not live the hunter-gatherer lifestyle with mini-afros in parts of South Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.24.191 (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Link to Boskop Man removed

@Toltol15: I removed the link to Boskop Man, because this article is about an obsolete race concept that has much to do with Carleton S. Coon, but nothing with real Africans. Coon's theories are considered pseudoscientific now - see his article and the long discussion on its talk page - so there is no POV involved in removing the link. --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: If that is the case, why is there a See also section in the Caucasian race wiki? You are making a lot of changes that are questionable. Toltol15 (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Toltol15: Normally it's better to indent, i.e. to use colons to make the structure of a discussion easily visible. I don't remember editing the See also section of Caucasian race, so I don't know why it is there. If that is a problem for you, you can edit that article or discuss it at that article's Talk page. If you have any specific questionable change in mind that I made, we can discuss it. But a discussion needs to be about a specific problem. --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: Well you cannot apply double standards, if you are removing links from this See also section because it is an outdated race concept you should also remove the links from the Caucasian race wiki, I am actually puzzled why you are adamant on removing it since the article clearly mentions those "real Africans" you are doing it for, if you believe Capoid refers to other real Africans please by all means add them here as well but to remove the link on the premise it has nothing to do with "real Africans" is completely ludicrous, in fact, this link is more related to this article than the links in the See also section of the Caucasian race wiki, so I am puzzled why it has brought this much attention to you, and you actually don't believe it is part of the historical outdated race concept as you have removed it here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australo-Melanesian&diff=prev&oldid=986709959. Toltol15 (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The mere existence of a "see also" section is a irrelevant. Some articles have them, some don't. The content of these sections still needs consensus.

This race is obsolete, so listing a specific example of this race would be misleading in several ways. See also sections usually lack any context or nuance, so inclusions in those sections should be uncontroversial. If a reliable (non-WP:FRINGE) source discusses the connection between this fossil and this obsolete racial category, it could be used to provide context to readers at the appropriate article. That context could be used to contextualize a "see also" entry. This usually takes this form:

* Wikilink – a very brief explanation of why this is relevant

Reliable sources are not optional, because without such sources this would be WP:OR. Grayfell (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Well if he wants to add the fossil link to the Negroid outdated concept I have no objection but the fossil is associated with the Capoid race and it was written in the fossil article that's why I added here the See also but to remove the historical Capoid name from the fossil article and then say it cannot be added here because it is an outdated race concept is perplexing. Toltol15 (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. It doesn't seem perplexing to me at all. The purpose of "see also" sections is not to cause confusion, it's to provide context. There is not obligation that this link should be placed in any see also section. The fossil's association with this topic still needs to be supported by a reliable source. Including it without a source is a subtle form of original research, which is not permitted here. Grayfell (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is RS issue. Toltol15 (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

See also sections are decided by WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus should be based on WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:DUE. "Associated" is too vague. Grayfell (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)