Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West african type

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete -- RoySmith (talk) 11:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West african type

Delete are we trying to support race science here? This article violates WP:NEO as neologism and origional research WP:NOR. While this article seems to have citations - I don't know if they're legit or by hacks/racists - the concept of West african type does not seem to be mainstream and rather is a title being made up by the author using a compendium of sources which lead the author to believe that there is a "West African type." For you googlers, note the lack of g-hits. Clearly non-notable fringe theory. WP:NN Strothra 00:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am from Czech republic, hence I am not influenced by any politically correct propaganda and I am also not sensitive to the study of racial differences. That's the problem of USA, Great Britain or France, not the problem of WIKIPEDIA. Nice to see that your biggest problem is not with the credibility of the sources, but with the content. And to suspect this article of racism is a sign of mental poorness.
The term "West African type" is used by Hiernaux in his People of Africa (1975). In fact, many authors use various terms for the description of the same anthropological type around the Gulf of Guinea: the :"moderately tall mesomorph". Some authors distinguish two subtypes in this area - hence you can find designations like "Sudanid (Savanna) type" (in West African savanna) or "Paleonegrid/Paleocongoid type" (in :West-Central rain forest). Today we already know that the Sudanid and the Paleonegrid type are of the same genetic origin, differing only by the magnitude of the Pygmy admixture and possibly by natural :adaptation to different climate (hot savanna/wet jungle). The differences between them are not so fundamental that we should distinguish them as separate racial types. Hence Hiernaux classification was :basically correct.
The physiological characteristics of the West African type are unique in comparison with all other human groups (which every athletic fan knows) and its classification as a separate race would be perfectly :valid (although in fact, it is a stabilized racial mixture). Besides this type, there actually exist another four separate "races" in Africa that are both genetically and physioogically very distinct:
1/ Nilotes in East Africa, an example of extreme human adaptation to hot, dry climate. They are descendants of a very old human lineage that separated from the rest of mankind maybe more than 100 000 years ago :and physiologically they are more distant from West Africans than both groups are distant from e.g. Europeans
2/ Khoisan in South Africa, again a very distinct and "old" people, who are distantly related to Nilotes
3/ Pygmies in forests of West-Central Africa, the second oldest human lineage. They are an extreme example of "insular dwarfism", i.e. adaptation to insufficient nutrition
4/ Ethiopid type in Ethiopia/Somalia - a stabilized mixture of "Negroids" (Nilotes, Neonegrids, Pygmies, and even partly Australoids) and Europids; however, genetic research indicates that their origin may be :more complicated and Somalis may be the "cleanest" descendants of the Saharan Neonegrids.
As for the term "Neonegrid", it is naturally new in connection with the population, for which I use it. However, there can't be an established term for these people, because 6 years ago nobody knew that they :have ever existed. Their existence is clear from genetic studies, but archeological evidence is scarce due to the enviroment in the Sahara. Ironically, these "invisible" people are ancestors of about 90% modern :sub-Saharan Africans. As I said in the article, they actually "created" modern Africans, but they are virtually nowhere present in its original form, because they mixed with people north and south of Sahara. :The :"cleanest" representatives of this paleolithic race are probably modern Somalis, in which the "Neonegrid" Y- and mtDNA lineages prevail most.
Anyway, the racial classification of people needs a big revision based on modern genetic research. However, you can't expect that anybody would dare to do it, especially in the Western hemisphere, because he :could be fired from the university. Personally I feel no problem with it, because I am self-employed, hence I can work without restraint, and in the age of the internet, I can have access to a sort of :information that I need. Centrum99 01:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may not be "influenced by any politically correct propaganda" but you are apparently influenced by outdated and bad science. Poltical correctness has nothing to do with it. I'm disturbed to see that medical progress does not advance very quickly in your side of the world. I blame the many years of Soviet opression and control. Don't worry, you'll catch up. --Strothra 01:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...and you are desperately brainwashed, mistaking politically motivated demagogy for science. Sorry. I don't think that the 8 men of West African ancestry in every big athletic final of the 100 m since 1988 :::(100% of the last 104 finalists) are "outdated". They are REAL. As well as the fact that you will find ZERO (0,00%) athletes of this origin in races 1500 m or longer, not only since 1988, but since the :::beginning of the athletic sport in the end of the 19th century. Why? My article explains the cause of this phenomena that we can today explain with the help of available (albeit still not 100% satisfactory) :::studies. Centrum99 01:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to calm down. This is a deletion discussion. Please read Wiki's policies on personal attacks before you are blocked from editing wikipedia. You should further read the policies on Wiki ::::against origional research, WP:NOR, and against neologisms WP:NEO. You should take a period and observe how things are done on wikipedia before you begin creating articles. This will help you ::::better acclamate to the process. Also, unlike your claims, I did question the validity of your sources. --Strothra 02:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you would need to present some arguments. So far you presented none, except some foggy claims about racism and non-mainstream science. I will welcome notes and criticism that can make this article better, but this needs people acquianted with this topic. I needed 5 years to collect relevant material. The references added to the article are only a small excerpt of the most useful literature that I used. I think that the differences in sports performance that we observe between various racial groups are a very interesting phenomena and as I see in the internet, many people seek (or would need) some explanation and sources to it. Since they can't find it, they construct their own explanations that have no real scientific basis and often lead to unfounded prejudices. Centrum99 02:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already cited the specific wikipedia policies which your article violates. Wikipedia is not a soundboard for your research. I suggest that you read these policies before contributing any more "articles" to wikipedia. --Strothra 02:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some other argument except "Delete"? Strothra, your motivations are obviously political, not scientific. You should know that we don't live in the 17th century anymore. And as for others, please present meaningful objections. Not "delete!" Centrum99 02:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete as OR/personal essay/neologism. There's an excel graph and a discussion of sports, and yet the text reads like it was written in 1870. "Exact physiological opposite"? Many of the sources are very old, and most of the more recent ones only refer to very specific claims in the text, not to the overall theme. Even in scare-quotes, no one refers to facial features as "primitive" anymore. Opabinia regalis 02:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are the same case. I welcome a discussion with somebody, who has some idea about this topic. Read the sources and then you can judge. Your opinion without the knowledge of the topic is worthless. What about if I went to some page about physics and cried that I don't understand it and they should delete it? What you mean with the question "exact physiological opposite"? What can be more "opposite" than excellence in the 100 m and the marathon? Remember that I am not a native English speaker. If you find another, better word for the description of this difference, I will use it. Old sources? 80% of the references come from time after 1990. The oldest are anthropological books that are still relevant. Do you think that muscle structure of some population will change within 40 years? I would say that it would need several thousand years. The reason, why there are (almost) no newer books on comparative anthropology is known (and is political). But anthropological measurements are still done for other purposes, so useful data for comparison with older studies can be found. Centrum99 02:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Opabinia regalis. Just chalk it up to my mental poorness. Montco 02:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some other argument except "Delete"? Strothra, your motivations are obviously political, not scientific. You should know that we don't live in the 17th century anymore. And as for others, please present meaningful objections. Not "delete!" And, by the way, this is not my research. I collect research of others. If you want to delete my article, then you can delete the whole Wikipedia, because everything is based on some research. Remember that you will find few people, who would study this topic in such a detailed way like me. If you find another source for the presented information, then I will welcome it. But don't reckon with it. And read above, what the misinterpretation of this topic causes in the public. Centrum99 02:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if it's your research or someone else. You are still in violation of using origional research. I will no longer repeat myself, read WP:NOR so that you understand what origional research is and how it may not be used. --Strothra 03:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sthrothra, I am not particularly interested in your opinion to this article. Your first post clearly indicates, what's behind your effort to delete it. My article is "a synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments", but not in a way "that builds a particular case favored by the editor". I quote all available research that tries to explain the problems presented in the article. I can go into more detail in the article, mentioning all problems that are bound with the interpretation of the data (for example, not all findings concerning VO2 max. differences between West Africans and Europeans are statistically significant, yet they betray a clear trend). No problem. But reckon with that the article will be quite large.

If you want, I can substitute the term "Neonegrid" for "bearers of Y-haplogroup E and mtDNA haplogroup L3" to avoid "neologism". But as you see, the first variant is much shorter (and this is why I use it). You can certainly catch me that I can't attribute "that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source". But this is an article dealing with several topics together, they don't appear anywhere in a "reputable source" together. I can list Tanner's book from 1964 or Bloomfield's CD from 2003 as an introduction in racial differences in body morphology and their relevance to sports performance, Coon's Living Races of Man (1965) as an introduction into general racial differences (+later studies that verify it), Entine's TABOO as an introduction into athletic history and racial differences in sports performance (I could actually use this book as a source of "a synthesis" of the article, but since it is not objective in all areas, I can't do it). And article reviews concerning endocrinology or skeletal/muscle build could be also available.

I thought that we can discuss this topic and gradually improve the article. I am not interested in opinions of people, who have zero knowledge of this topic and their only argument is "Delete!". They can't judge its objectivity. However, I welcome meaningful, factical arguments. Centrum99 03:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepThe origin of the term which has been deemed a neologism is thirty years old, so it is not a neologism. The article is well-sourced. Old sources on physical type are still good sources, since the measuring tools were available at that time. It is not a personal essay, since the whole thing seems to be sourced. There seems to be no reason for deletion of this article.---Dark Tichondrias 03:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you prove that the term is in wise use as to make it notable? There are no google hits for it. Also, this article is not written to present the topic as historical, but rather contemporary. To present this as real contemporary science is counter to the idea of an credible encyclopedia. Also, old sources are not good sources when it comes to anthropology and science. Old sources can only be used in presenting the history of an idea, but that is not how they are used in the article. These sources often promote the political agendas of their period. Further, the article uses origional research clearly violating WP:NOR which states classifies origional research as "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position." This article is origional research. --Strothra 03:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this term in Cavalli-Sforza's HISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY OF HUMAN GENES (1994). To be 100% objective, I didn't read Hiernaux book, because it is not available anywhere in my country. I only read the conclusions from it presented in Sforza's book and then data concerning body morphology quoted from the book by others. Hiernaux actually only finished the work of other anthropologists, who came to the same (or almost the same) conclusions during the last century. The physical differences between anthropological types in Africa are namely very marked, which can be seen from the "athletic graph". The physique needed for excellence in such different disciplines like the 100 m and the 10 000 m is very, very different. Hiernaux data are comparable with the results of recent studies, like e.g. Rebacz' article on East African physique that I list on the page about The Nilotic type. I can make you certain that the people haven't changed during the recent 40 years. Centrum99 04:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be more exact, Hiernaux includes both above mentioned types (in his conception West Sudan=Sudanid, Paleonegrid=Guinea Rain Forest) into one broad cathegory with the location in West Africa. An internet link to the scan from Hiernaux (actually Sforza's) book can be found here: http://dodona.proboards35.com/index.cgi?board=physanth&action=display&thread=1138552682 Hence you can argue that he actually doesn't call it a "West African type" explicitly, but I use it as a geographical term including both these anthropological types, because they have a relatively recent common origin. I think this is really better than using a term "West Sudanid and Guinea Rain Forest type". Hiernaux classification agrees with the observations of all other anthropologists before him, with little differences, of course, but the basic distribution of sub-Saharan Africans into 5-6 main groups (with Nilotes and Ethiopids forming sometimes single cathegories, which is fully correct) has survived the test of time. It is not perfectly correct from the genetic point of view, it is primarily an anthropological survey that can be very good as a general description of physical differences between African populations. I will add some maps of respected anthropologists to the article. Their versions of this classification don't differ much. I will even add recent anthropometric data on West African nations. Centrum99 05:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per all above. Does not belong here because I would like to see a general community decision on what we should do about these types of articles, which can be quite controversial (and offensive).UberCryxic 04:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's offensive on this article? Are you joking? Remember please that I am not interested in any political agenda that you are taught in America or elsewhere. That's your problem. This is WIKIPEDIA. Let ideology to ideologists and science to scientists! Well, I thought that I would make a relatively brief article, but it seems that I will have to post much more of the data that I have, including photographs and pictures. I do hope that they will be instructive even for moderately blind people. Centrum99 04:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uber's point is that race science such as what you are espousing is imperfect, and is a pseudo-science and ultimately political in nature. It's considered by most people to be exactly what you are criticizing others of. Most people view race science as Nazi/Neo-nazi fascist propaganda. --Strothra 05:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strothra, I said it before: I am not interested in any political agenda coming from the United States or elsewhere. If you have problems with the relationship with other racial groups, solve it in your countries and don't force your politically correct speech upon others. I present scientific research; if you like to argue, argue with facts. "Delete!" is an argument of narrow-minded medieval jezuites, who also wanted to silence all free-thinking people that didn't agree with the official ideology. Centrum99 07:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - while it may be possible to write an encyclopaedic article about this topic, this article is clearly unsuitable for Wikipedia. Original research is not acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Centrum has admitted that her/his ideas about race are novel ("The model that I presented above comes from the combination of anthropology and modern genetic studies. It needs no sophisticated deductive abilities, only the knowledge of anthropological differences and Y/mtDNA-haplogroups. I can't find anybody in the scientific world, who would try to combine it and produce a more modern racial classification"). These ideas fall outside of the scope of Wikipedia. Guettarda 06:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Guettarda. To expand on his point, the article also includes at least one other part where the author explicitly talks in the first person, saying how he/she is using terms and synthesizing information. This is a textbook example of original research; it's written like a college paper. Certainly not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. --The Way 06:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1/I said it already: What would you like more: "Neonegrids" or "bearers of Y-haplogroup E and mtDNA haplogroup L3"? Well, if you like the second one more, I will correct it. But then please don't complain that it's hard to read.

2/I explicitly ask people, who have no idea about this topic, not to meddle into it. The racial classification that I presented on that page has little in common with this article and I didn't intrude it upon anybody, which I explicitly stressed. The anthropological distribution that I present here has been established during the last century and is nothing new. The "new thing" in it is only genetics, because with genetics we can establish genetic connections between Khoisan and Nilotes, for example, but genetic talk is not a subject of discussion of this article, except the distribution of Y- and mtDNA haplogroups in West African nations, which can be verified by x-sources. Centrum99 06:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Centrum, you don't seem to understand that the number one problem here is that the entire article violates the Wikipedia's guidelines regarding use of original research. Indeed, judging from your above comments it appears that the article is your original research. For example, the phrase "A note: The title "Neonegrid", used in this connection, is no official scientific term; it is a designation of the editor of this article coming from books of older anthropologists, who used it for "more advanced", more Europoid-looking African populations," which I took straight from the article in question, is a perfect example of what original research is. It directly states that the 'editor of this article' is responsible for the formulation and use of the term within the article. That's perfectly fine, indeed it is expected, in a academic paper. However, the Wikipedia is NOT a repository for academic papers. Unfortunately, replacing that with 'bearers of Y-haplogroup E...' will not solve the underlying problem that the entire article seems to be YOUR synthesis of the conclusions of a number of different authors which, again, constitutes original research. Finally, please refrain from continually telling people who aren't experts on the subject to 'not meddle.' Arguing over deletion is an administrative function open to all Wikipedia editors and it necessarily does not require any expertise as deletion is based upon particular, generalized guidelines about whether a given topic justifies an article. The guidelines apply equally well to all articles and don't require expertise on the given subject. --The Way 07:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So how many references do I need to create an article here? These things are normally accepted by people, who know what's going on: See at least (very brief) article about racial differences in body proportions and sports performance in Bloomfield et al. (2003). However, almost all people here are crying "Delete!" without even checking the references I posted. I expected notes and factical discussion, not arguments "I don't like it. Erase it!" Then, please, erase my article with the whole Wikipedia. The information there is a synthesis of original resarch that I can no longer trust. Since every study is an original research, there is no study in the world that could be verified. We should rather abolish the whole science and return to the middle ages. Centrum99 07:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:NOR violation. Google tells me there's a West African type of okra. And our article is near the top of results for this topic, almost never a good sign. --Dhartung | Talk 07:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People, you obviously have no clue, what this article is about. I describe a really existing racial type (more concretely, two slightly different racial types) that exist in West Africa. Hence I write "West African type". This type (or his two sub-cathegories) was independently identified in works of different authors, but sometimes with different terminology:

Hiernaux: "West Africa" (West Sudan+Guinea rain forest)

Biasutti: Sudanese + Silvestre (Sudanic type + Forest type)

Lundman: Sudanid/Senegalid type + Hylaenegrid type

Eickstedt: Sudanid + Paleonegrid

Coon: "Negroes" (distinguishes the forest Pygmy-Negro mixture)

If you are so strict, I can make two separate pages on "Sudanid type" and "Forest type", but their description will be almost the same. Centrum99 08:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not a matter of how many references you have. Rather, it's a matter of how you present them. First of all, you lay everything down as fact which is not necessarily the case. Second of all, you use no in-text citations even though you include page numbers in the reference section. All the individual premises in an article of this nature need to have the citations included in the text to show that they are conclusions reached by published material. Thirdly, an encyclopedia article can NEVER refer to the articles author; that implies original research. Finally, the article needs to be structurally set up so that it is clear that the purported facts are properly placed in the context of the research that led to them, meaning that it should be clear which authors argue what and attention must be drawn to show where different researches agree and disagree. Even then, POV problems are still possible. I won't even address the argument that some here may call this pseudoscience (and it very well may be, though I'm not making an opinion either way) but the fact is that wikipedia allows pseudoscience so long as its placed into context with the field at large. Finally, Centrum, in looking at your past contributions it is clear that you are a new editor here and your other contribution has run into similar problems. As such, may I suggest that you please look over all of wikipedia's guidelines (they can be found under 'community portal' which is located on the left-hand side of the screen) so you can avoid mistakes in the future which should make your editing less frustrating to both yourself and other editors since it will help to avoid miscommunication? Wikipedia has a great number of guidelines that editors apply when working on the site. --The Way 07:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People on Wikipedia complain that articles are too long. It is no problem for me to write a more detailed page with exact numbers, all available studies quoted (not all in agreement, of course), statements beginning with the name of their author etc. But I have no doubt that then I will hear again: "It is too long. I don't understand it. Delete it!" Better said, I can write a general article on racial differences in sports performance - which was, after all, the original motivation to this synthesis. Then we can avoid a hot discussion about "a West African type". But it will exist irrespectively if you want it or not. P.S. I really don't know, how to quote a published material and, at the same time, not to list its source. Centrum99 08:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:NOR QuiteUnusual 09:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and explain to me how an article with over 30 books in the references section fails NOR. See my comments on Afd:Niolotic type [1] for my reasoning. We have an article on Eugenics, which is surely a reprehensible subject, we have an article on Slavery, same deal. Just because you are repulsed by a topic does not mean it does not merit an article. Should we discover that the sources do not support the article, we can edit the article, and if all we have in the end is "A term used by racial science promoters in the early 20th century, no longer used" with history and so on, that's what we'll have. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Change to Delete, see rationale on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nilotic type KillerChihuahua?!? 14:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the answer to your question is in WP:NOR. This is original research because it is the editor's own synthesis of the listed references. It is original research based on the references rather than an encyclopedia entry drawing entirely from the references without adding new ideas of the editor's own devising QuiteUnusual 11:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Then that makes it a candidate for cleanup. Look at Jesus now, and Jesus in 2001. Completely OR in 2001. Did we delete it? We did not. We fixed it. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Jesus was a notable subject matter. This is not. This term cannot be found in scholarly journals or even a google search. This user has only been able to cite one occasion in which he has found the term, but I hardly feel that we can take his word on it as he is clearly biased. The term has and never has had popular usage either in the public or in scientific communities. --Strothra 13:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the article fails WP:NOR (I'm fairly sure it does) and is an obscure term that offends some people, what's the use in keeping it? Pcbene 13:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR, POV...et al. Did User:Centrum99 just call me a coon? "Them's Fightin' words." L0b0t 14:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. --Aaron 14:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I dont really know what to make of this. Most of all I'm kind of underwhelmed by the categorisation of 'Europeans' as just 'Europeans': Celtic peoples, for instance, fall into two distinct 'types' - so why is there no article describing how their athletic prowess differs? Likewise is there no nordic 'type'? No hispanic type? How do these various white types perform in sports? Why are all Europeans just lumped together as 'European'? I'd welcome your comments on this Centrum99. Marcus22 15:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as per WP:NOR violation, clear even by the author's admission. I could launch into a long explanation as to the how and why most anthropologists today do not embrace a racial view of human diversity, but a more clinal view (see the works of Lieberman, Beals et al, Cavalli-Sforva et al to begin with), but I won't. The article's original conclusions could be contested on the basis of this work. But the objection is much more fundamental, one that you absolutely don't need to know anything about anthropology to realize: this is obvious original research, and as such has no place in Wikipedia. The vast majority of Wikipedia articles (at least the long-standing ones) have steered clear of original research and discuss of matters and issues already reviewed in one or more secondary sources. The subject of this article has no secondary sources: it is in and of itself a primary source, based on piecing together information from a commendably wide variety of sources. But the analysis it makes is clearly OR, and as such, not suitable for Wikipedia. I would also take this opportunity to kindly remind the author to assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks. Stating that another editor's knowledge is insufficient to judge the article on even general guidelines can certainly be construed as a personal attack. 'Nuff said!--Ramdrake 16:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR as explained by Ramdrake. Sandstein 16:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research -- you suppose this author is trying so hard to promote his ideas on Wikipedia because he can't get them published anywhere else? NawlinWiki 17:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say so, particularly when he says things like, "Personally I feel no problem with it, because I am self-employed, hence I can work without restraint." --Strothra 17:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research -- Whpq 17:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as original research. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Speedy Keep Content is encyclopedic and valid. Wikipedia should not be used to censor cited research just because some people find it offensive. Gottoupload 23:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:One of the problems of this article is pointedly that it is not cited. This is not censorship, just application of WP:NOR and WP:CITE.--Ramdrake 23:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are cites. What part of it are you disputing? Gottoupload 00:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are not in-line cites, to start. Second, this is a highly disputed area and nothing in the article acknowledged that, and last but not least, this is for the most part OR through and through, and as such, unsitable for Wikipedia. Please take the time to read the other comments and familiarize yourself with the WP:NOR guideline. It should become clear then.--Ramdrake 00:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I don't understand. What's highly disputed exactly? That's there's a type of people that come from West Africa? When are we going to get over our paranoia about race? Sorry but we're not all the same. There are different types of people: tall ones, short ones, black ones, white ones, red ones, brown ones, and yellow ones, men and women, adults and children. Diversity is a good thing. Gottoupload
Nobody disputes that biodiversity exists. What is disputed is the way it is best represented. Currently, there are two major competing views: cluster (which find races) and clinal, which finds that human biodiversity is spread as a rather continuous differential for the diverse characteristics of humanity rather than in neat "clumps" called races. Possibly the best representation of this is: go from Oslo to Nairobi and tell me when you stop seeing "White" people and start seeing "Black" people. You won't - what you'll see is a continuum of skin tone from lighter to darker. The concept of races, in the clinal view, thus imposes artificial boundaries on biogeographic diversity. And, last time I checked, the clinal view was the one that was gaining most of the support among anthropologists. Thus, my statement that the very existence of races (and even more sub-races and types such as "West African Type" and "Nilotic") is disputed.--Ramdrake 02:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Could someone familiar with the process please check if users Centrum 99 and Gottoupload might be one and the same person trying to evade a block through the use of a sockpuppet? There are strange similarities between the two. Thanks.--Ramdrake 00:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your barking up the wrong tree on this one. Not only am I not Centrum 99, this is the first I've heard of him or her. Gottoupload 00:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied that they are not the same character. Sadly, there are, in fact, some people who believe this pseudo-science. Regardless, the article clearly fails to meet notability and origional research standards. Not to mention that the term is not even in academic or popular usage. --Strothra 04:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep This nomination is a koan. Very evocative of each user's personal attitudes. IMHO, unfinished article content possesses encyclopedic tone, has lots of documentation (if this had been AfD'd WITH inline cites we wouldn't be on this page discussing this), and happens to be written on a subject most think controversial (human race and racial typing). As an example of homo sapiens, I wouldn't be adverse to an article on my racial type, but it's not as clearly differentiated and documented as this particular discussion. I disagree about neo on the merits, given a factual Hiernaux cite. Given proper inline citation (and some personal reading), I might disagree with nor (have no way of knowing in the article's current state). Every plant and animal has noted variation within a given population, and IMHO, denial of a documented scientific discussion on this related subject seems incorrect and perhaps POV. Body type is a large part of sports technology and sports medicine. No sock here, and no expert on this subject. I'm just not offended by what the article intends. BusterD 00:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again I must interject. This has to be the most contentious AfD debate I've seen in some time. I will admit that the topic MAY have encyclopedic value, however the way it is currently presented is wholly unencyclopedic for several reasons:
1. No in-line citations, which are especially important with non-internet sources.
2. The article is written in such a way so as to directly discuss the creator of the article and the way in which the article's creator synthesized the material. This is clearly original research; all mentions of the article's author must be expunged, terms that are from the source materials are the only ones that should be used and the article must not synthesize the information but rather should directly report that information (meaning, the information should be properly attributed to the authors and the editor of the article can't draw any conclusions)
3. The article reports the material as if it is 100% verified fact. In reality, the material here is highly contentious and the article should reflect this. The work needs to be placed into the context of anthropology, biology and other relevant fields and it needs to be pointed out how important this research is considered in those fields; is it widely accepted, is it a niche in the field?
4. The term itself doesn't seem to originate with any of the works cited. I may be wrong about this, but others here have claimed to have done searches of scholarly journals and google with no relevant finds. I'll try a search of JSTOR later, if I can (I can only do it from the university library and am currently on crutches... it's a long walk). If the term is a creation of the article's author then the article can't be salvaged.
If these four problems can be addressed, the article might be worth keeping. --The Way 01:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see few differences between my position and that expressed above by The Way. BusterD 02:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is using a term which isn't even used widely in academic or popular circles. It's a neologism - otherwise it would have to be an accepted anthropological term which it is not - I haven't been able to find it in any anthropological journal. The article relies solely on primary sources and dubious secondary sources which aren't even about the topic of west african type, but are rather used by the author to extract data to make a point - clearly violating WP:NOR. Most of the concepts in this article were abandoned by the anthropological community in the mid 20th century when the discipline began to realize that physical differences were not as genetic as they were environmental, thus race science which had been used to support practices such as eugenics was abandoned as well, primarily in the United States and western Europe. None of the works used as citations actually refer to "West african type" but are rather used to support the term thru the author's own synthesis again violating WP:NOR. I mean honestly, the author called black people "coons"....These ideas are not science, they find their origions in 1930's Europe, predominately Nazi Germany, with the development of race science which espoused ideas such as cranial measurements to identify race. --Strothra 04:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I find it a little joke but it does seem to think it has some research and i dont give a hoop about Google hits, its not a popularity contest. I dont like the slant of the article but it does try to debate its case. And for the sake of silly information i think people need information about these kinds of "thinking". Just like the mad definitions of black people, put them up there, so history can remember how silly we were. And just because it is nonsense doesnt mean we should delete it.all that high-brow ranting on Engels seem to get first place, who is googling that madness? I mean even the World Health organization has different condoms for African and Asian people, they study states the average penis size for an Africa is much greater than that for the average European and Asian. So this article should stay because clearly the thinking behind it is something organizations use. And the whole prostate cancer study (in AA men) is washed with the same information. --Halaqah 11:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No answer to my comment (above) suggests to me that this article exists solely to make a spurious point about race. It is complete nonsense to categorise all Europeans as a single 'European' (type?) and then, ignoring this significant and convenient oversight, make rather crass comparisons between 'Europeans' and various African 'types'. But by all means correct me on this, I'd love to hear the justification... Marcus22 18:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how are you? I am returning after one day's ban for the insult of Strothra. Nice to see that he eventually ridiculed himself and showed his level, mistaking one of the greatest anthropologists of the 20th century, Carleton Coon, for a coon. I wonder if the calibre of many other "reviewers" here is substantially higher, and I must say that this experience with Wikipedia is disgusting for me. Obviously, many people are so indoctrinated by their life-long exposure to PC "standards" that they are simply unable to think about it openly.

I think that the best solution at this moment would be to erase both the article WEST AFRICAN TYPE and NILOTIC TYPE, and start a new page about Physical anthropology of Africa, where I will discuss the topic in broader connections, starting with the traditional racial classification of the 20th century, adding modern genetic and anthropometric data, and finishing with "Race and Sports". I think it would be better than quarrels about a term that can be easily attacked as a "neologism". I suppose that all the company present here will come together again on another discussion forum. Centrum99 21:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you wrote, "Coon: "Negroes" (distinguishes the forest Pygmy-Negro mixture)," it was misread by more authors than just myself. Please attempt to write in a clear fashion, especially when you are attempting to make an argument. Further, please stop attempting to create articles until you have more experience on Wiki and you know more about the process. When you violate so many wiki procedures you make things more difficult for the other editors who have to clean up after you. Also, please note that you are walking a thin line with the other editors so you should watch what you say lest you become blocked again for a longer period. --Strothra 21:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry, I misread that myself, and the only thing I am indoctrinated by is many years of ignorant racism. Since you are from behind the iron curtain, allow me to lay a little knowledge on ya. The word "coon" has been used for many years as a perjorative for black people, and if you were to call a black person "coon" in my neighborhood you would find yourself on the receiving end of an ass kicking. My apologies for misinterpreting your writing. L0b0t 23:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Centrum, you still don't seem to understand that, aside from the scientific and political merits of the article, perhaps the biggest problem is the violation of wikipedia's well-established guidelines concerning original research. You REALLY need to look over Wikipedia's guidelines. The way you have presented the article is by writing it as if it were an academic paper. Now, academic papers are great for school and academic journals; I'm a graduate student so I've written many myself. However, the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an academic journal, and, as such, has very different criteria for what is and is not appropriate. You'd NEVER see an article like this, written in this way, in the Encyclopedia Brittannica nor should you see it here. The problem is you are SYNTHESIZING the material when you should be REPORTING it. You're suggestion that you create a new article will likely run into the same problems if you approach it as you approached these ideas. An article on the Wikipedia can NEVER refer to its authors and can't put out anything that is a conclusion of those authors, everything in an article must come from other published sources. You can't make up terms and you certainly can't draw ANY conclusions from the material. You also must place the research presented in context of the field at large meaning you must answer questions such as 'how widely accepted is this view?,' 'what do other approaches to this field have to say about this research?' 'how important is this research to the field?' and so on. Furthermore, for an article of this nature all the premises in the article MUST be accompanied my in-text citations. This article has met none of these requirements. Even if the topic weren't controversial I would support deletion because these criteria have not been met. Now, there is also resistance here because it is politically sensitive; this is considered by many to be 'race science' which is considered in much of the english-speaking world to be a pseudoscience. However, this is not the reason for supporting deletion; even pseudoscience and racist ideologies can be on wikipedia, we're not exactly pc around here. Yet, such theories must be relevant to their field and be notable. Given that the very name of this article seems to be made up by you (appearing in only one source is not enough to qualify it as notable enough for Wikipedia) it seems to fail this requirement. I personally think this work, though presented in a convincingly academic language, is pseudoscience and largely false however if it were a well-known concept it would still deserve an article. Yet, it doesn't seem to be a well-known concept. --The Way 22:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is very valid research. Just because the sources can't be found on-line is not a reason to delete. On the contrary, the sources are so encyclopedic that they can only be found in scholarly text books instead of popular web pages. Timelist 00:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The sources can only be found in "scholarly text books" because this racist pablum has not been considered valid since the first half of the 20th century. That however, is not the reason for this AfD. This AfD was started because the author of the article has engaged in speculative original research and that is not acceptable for the encyclopedia. Have you bothered to read all the postings in this discussion? L0b0t 00:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is NOT valid research! "and physiologically they are more distant from West Africans than both groups are distant from e.g. Europeans"? There is NO single 'European Type'; no "valid research" would make such a fundamentally flawed statement. Marcus22 09:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To your quotation: In the context, where I wrote it, it is obviously appropriate. West Africans and East Africans represent two opposite pools of running physiology; there are no other groups in the world that would be more antithetic - or how to say it in English - in this regard. Europoids (Europeans, North Africans) fall in the middle. Or didn't you see the graph? Sprinters of West African ancestry utterly dominate the 100-400 m, yet the whole athletic history knows NO - not one! - full-blooded athlete of West African ancestry, who would be competetive in races 1500 m or longer. The opposite is valid for East Africans: they virtually sweep off the rest of the world in the 5000 m-marathon, but they can't usually find enough good runners, who would be at least able to qualify for the first round of an international competition in the 100-200 m. As for the "relevance" of the research, there already exists a special international institute for the study of the "East African running science" at the University of Glasgow called "ICEARS" http://www.icears.org/index.htm. Recently they have also added West African (Nigerian) sprinters to their area of interest http://www.icears.org/research.htm

Thus this is a regular field of scientific research that has developed since mid 80's. I see that most of people here have never heard about this topic and they look at it like if I just brought it from the Moon. But you will understand it, after you have read more about it. And I understand that I should limit "my" articles to quoting data from sources and avoiding my own interpretations. I do hope that the article about anthropology that I prepare, will be considerably more acceptable. However, it will take some time to finish it. Centrum99 17:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People have certainly heard of physical anthropology. People also know that it is a pseudoscience which is no longer accepted by mainstream scholars of anthropology. Any articles written on biological or physical anthropology must be written in a historical since to present the history of the idea, not to present the idea as truth - that would make the article unencyclopedic. Physical anthropology is a form of study developed during the 19th century lasting through the middle of the 20th century, but anthropology as a discipline has advanced far beyond that and has since left that field behind. --Strothra 21:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Even though Wikipedia is not censored, this violates WP:NOR. Though my personal preference would have this article deleted, Wikipedia is not censored. However, this article violates WP:NOR, and would be easier to accept as a "historical review" of what some anthropologists have worked on, as this is non-mainstream. Thanks Ramdrake for your informative comments on biodiversity. Delta Tango • Talk 18:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the idea about the "clinal view" presented by Ramdrake as incorrect. Naturally, there are (mostly) no strict borders between traditionally defined races, but it doesn't mean that race doesn't exist. The cores of the classical races came into being mostly between 100 000-35 000 years ago due to geographical isolation of less numerous groups of humans. This is evident from Y-chromosomal lineages. For example, the ancestors of Nilotes and Khoisan diverged from the rest of humans about 100 000 years ago. Pygmies diverged maybe 60 000-80 000 years ago. When in warmer periods the population of such isolated groups increased and the people expanded to other regions, they naturally encountered people of other groups and mixed with them. Hence the transition between these racial cores is clinal, but the original cores still preserve characteristic physical traits that evolved during the time of the isolation. In short, this "clinal view" is only another attempt, how to "circumvent" the classical racial concept and avoid using the term "race" at any cost. Centrum99 19:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Well, you might be right if all those "populations" which "branched off" so many thousands of yers ago had lived in complete isolation from each other ever since. However, that's just not the case. Intermarriages, to various degrees (some very extensive) have been occuring ever since, and this is why say population B, living between populations A and C will tend to have physical characteristics intermediate between the two. Please reivew the works of Cavalli-Sforza, Beals et al and and Lieberman as I suggested before before you say again the clinal view is "incorrect". The "racial" view is a theory born of empirical observation when we had no idea what was causing the biodiversity. Now that we know in good part what is causing it, indeed the clinal view is what has become best accepted by anthropologists in general. "Race" as a concept basically divides the human race into several subspecies. Studies of the human genetic varaiation found that only 6-15% of the total genetic variation is due to "race", and that over 85% of the variation exists between two randow individuals (that are unrelated). That basically says "race" as a way of partitioning the human race is indeed a weak concept.--Ramdrake 21:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Centrum, you said "The physiological characteristics of the West African type are unique in comparison with all other human groups... and its classification as a separate race would be perfectly valid". Could one not also argue that, just by way of example, 'The socio-psychological characteristics of the 'East European type' are unique in comparsion with all other human groups... and its classification as a separate race would be perfectly valid'? If so, do we not, ultimately, end up without any class 'Human' and just as many 'races' as there are individuals? You would surely not wish to go down that path?? Marcus22 20:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That is precisely where and why the clinal view came into favor. At the limit, if one takes into view all the different characteristics and their variations, subdividing humanity into a small number of "races" based on a handful of physical characteristics while ignoring others began to make less and less sense. At the limit, the clinal view states that if you take all characteristics into consideration, then likely you will end up with as many (or nearly as many) "races" as individuals.--Ramdrake 22:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdrake, I would like to ask you to use your own brain (and especially common sense), not to use Lewontine's brain, especially when the brain is quite antiquated (1973). The mantra about "15% variation within races, 85% variation within individuals" is already boring. Most human genes are "junk" genes with no function and it is the little part of the functional genes that matters most. Those "handful" physical characterists are just those characterists that have accumlated over time in a geographically isolated group and this is just these characteristics that define race. It is funny that medicine is still forced to stay desperately "backward" and study racial differences due to different reaction of each race to diseases and drugs. Hence scientific reasearch is now aimed at finding genetic mutations specific to each race, which will help during treatment of racially mixed individuals. Unfortunately, accepting "clinal concept" in medicine would lead to almost sure clin(ic)al death of the patient. (But there certainly exist many people, who would rather die instead of living with the feeling that they had to abandon their progressive scientific view.) Anyway, it is depressing to see that science now entered a new "dark age". If you have no idea, what an opinion you defend, read Andersen's Emperor's New Clothes. That's a nice allegory of today's world of PC. We must wait several decades, after the end of multiethnic civil wars in Western countries, when common sense again wins. (By the way, I heard in the media, that "clinal" rioters in Paris again burn cars and buildings.) Centrum99 19:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Centrum, making personal attacks isn't going to help. Also, you comment on Lewontine's braing being 'antiquated' since his work was published in 1973: aren't many of the studies this article relies on from the 1970s and 1960s, too? --The Way 22:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you will see personal attacks in whatever I say. I simply recommended to him to think independently and not to parrot ideologically motivated claims of others. Centrum99 23:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am indeed thinking independantly, and I wonder whose ideology you think I am parroting.--Ramdrake 15:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Centrum, have you ever seen the Caine Mutiny? Marcus22 19:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have never seen the Caine Mutiny, only just read something about the plot a while ago. Tell me, please, what an allegory to this discussion you want to indicate. I think we both could proclaim that we see our opponents in the story.

  • The Caine Mutiny: Towards the very end, in a wonderful but rather touching scene, Captain Queeg - brilliantly portrayed by Bogart I might add - reveals his previously in-question paranoia to the court. It is great piece of cinema. One of Bogart's best roles. And well worth watching. The relevance of that? Well your last paragraph, above, reminds of that scene. You've certainly removed any vestige of doubt in my mind as to the thought processes underlying your 'research'. Marcus22 21:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have no doubts that I am acquianted with the topic "Race and IQ", but this is not an area that I am interested most. Or do you think that I am a "racist", when I say that black people outclass Europeans in some sport disciplines? What I resent is the fact that in an effort to cover racial differences in IQ and behaviour, even physical anthropology is politically suppressed. In fact, the whole field of the study of population differences is ostracized and censored. Centrum99 23:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is neither ostracized nor censored; it is merely becoming more and more obsolete as our understanding of the genetic causes and mechanisms underlying biodiversity increases.--Ramdrake 23:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P. S.: I just got a warning from my countryman here on Wikipedia that discussing the topic "race" with Americans is futile and leads nowhere even after many months. So let's leave this discussion, please, I must write the new article. However, I think that English is the international language Number 1 and English Wikipedia doesn't belong only to Americans or Britons. Centrum99 19:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you will be pleased to know that I am neither British, nor American, nor is English my first language. :)--Ramdrake 20:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WOW,I don't where to start with all that. Can you name a single Western country currently engaged in a civil war, multiethnic or otherwise? Medical students may be forced to study things but medicine is not forced to study anything at all. The only "dark age" of recent note is the 1st half of the 20th century and the Eugenics that seem to entrance you so. Centrum you still do not seem to understand that this AfD is not a referendum on the existance of races but rather, on the way you wrote the article. Drawing your own conclusions from outside sources and incorporating those conclusions into an article is a blatant violation of WP:OR, using terms that you have coined or that have been coined too recently to be in common useage violates WP:NEO. Also, the race-baiting does nothing to win editors over to your side and instead, gives people a very good reason to discount ANYTHING you may have to contribute. L0b0t 20:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ain't that the truth. --Strothra 22:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I decided to go ahead and check some of the references. Abe et al. reference does not use term "West African type". Ama, et. al. not actually in May, 1986 Journal of Applied Physiology according to table of contents at [2]. Ama & Ambassa 1997, do not use term "West African type". Gerace 1994 (which is at page 255, not page 263 of The American Journal of Human Biology 1994 Volume 6) does not use term "West African type". Dupertuis Structural Profile does not use ther term "West African type". The CDC link is the welcome page for participants in the National Center for Health Statistics National Health and Nutrition Examination Study, and does not use the term "West African type"; the data improperly referenced is at [3] and does not use the term "West African type" either. Salas 2002 does not use the term "West African type"; "West African" is used as an adjective in a number of sentences that I admit I don't understand. Rahmani, Locatelli, & Lacour 2004 no use of term "West African type". I'm noticing a pattern which leads me to agree with the claim this article's a WP:NOR violation. The Literate Engineer 21:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/West_african_type&oldid=1069021957"